Slashdot Mirror
50K Linux Man Bites At Merkey.net
magnany writes "In a recent article, former TRG CEO Jeff V. Merkey had offered to pay 50K USD for a BSD-licensed Linux. Groklaw did a followup on his offer, to which Jeff responded by notifying the FBI of Groklaw's 'hate crimes violation.' Merkey doesn't exactly have a great record, either, which is made even more apparent by his recent threats to file suit against Merkey.net for slander and trademark infringement, amongst others. In addition, he has also reported Merkey.net to the FBI's hate crime department. What could Merkey.net do to get Jeff V. Merkey off their backs?"
Offer him 50K USD to make him behave as if he was released under a BSD-license.
I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
Related Links
Best deals: Censorship
He's clearly trying to defame GrokLaw and put it's credibility into question. Why not sue him for libel, and tack on a charge that he's trying to con the Linux community into selling their nestegg to him for a mere pittance of what he would make if the deal went through?
After weeks of spreading FUD to the point you would think the guy is mentally challenged, he posted what might be seen as an apology:
l /0410.3/0506.html
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kerne
Where's the BOFH when you need him?
"The mission is to rout [Merkey], to find [him] and bring [him] to justice[...] Or, as I explained to the [people of Slashdot] in Western terms, to smoke [him] out of [his] caves, to get [him] running so we can get [him]."
Thanks George.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Why are responsible slashdotters encouraged to ignore trolls but such a blatant one gets an entire story? After the very professional way the kernel developers tore him apart you'd think the issue would be over.
Don't feed the trolls!
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
It's so pathetic. When does it all end?
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
And, in unrelated news, /. is being investigated by the FBI's hate crime unit...
He's probably looking for a new job.
;-)
Maybe a Slashdot editor?
> Or at least seriously mentally handicapped
The guy was Chief Architect for NetWare, so that much should be obvious.
What could Merkey.net do to get Jeff V. Merkey off their backs?
/etc/mail
assuming sendmail...
# cd
# echo "jmerkey@drdos.com REJECT" >> access
# make
Merkey is with dr dos. Dr Dos is another one of the companies owned by the Nordas, and is actually controlled by Brian Sparks. Brian is the same guy who started this whole fiasco with caldera. It should be obvious that this will be where the next major attack is going to be coming from.
Jeff can be easily googled and his affiliation seen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Note that "forums.merkey.net" is the "winner of the first round of Nigritude Ultramarine", an SEO competition to find new ways to get things in search engines. The entire thing is liberally scattered with references to Seraphim Proudleduck, which I can only guess is round 2.
This entire thing is an attempt to win a competition designed to find new ways to spam Google.
Well done Slashdot, what a guy to help out..
http://twitter.com/onion2k
-
(a) there is some consensus among the developers about the price, which in turn depends who many such private licenses are likely to be granted (which in turn depends on whether Mr Murkey plans about sharing his acquisition with others), and
- (b) whether he can practically manage to locate and convince all developers. Not all developers might be known, but that's not HIS fault. If people contribute to the kernel without leaving a comment of what they did and who they are, I'm not sure what copyright law says about claims those people can make. Think about somebody who came out in 2004 claiming to have authored your favorite folklore song; I don't think any court would assign rights a posteriori, with the song being printed in thousands of song books marked "traditional".
Would such a procedure harm the open source/free software world? I doubt it. The main development will be on the GPLed branch. And it is not a particular snapshot of the source code that constitute the value of Linux, it's the process of continuous incremental innovation, refinement, and debugging watched my more competent and sceptical eyes than any company could hire for quality control. Without such a powerful task force behind it, a BSD-licensed branch would of verly limited value, because quickly out of date. PANTA RHEI!Even the unknown authorship in Linux sources could be solved by asking all known authors to delineate sections of code in Linux they have developed. Regions that have no known owner would have to be re-implemented. (Does such an ownership map exist? How many LOC are owned by 'Anonymous'?)
--
Try Nuggets , the mobile search engine. We answer your questions via SMS, across the UK.
Actually, the hate crime law mentions nothing about being "a fucking annoying GUYS LISTEN TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! GUYS!? GUYS!!! hasbeen"
That said, if you were willing to think outside the box, this could be construed as a (mental) disability (which would be covered)
From the FBI website;
Although the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 (amended in 1994 and 1996) defines a hate crime as a crime against a person or property motivated by bias toward race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, or sexual orientation, the FBI does not have any federal jurisdiction to investigate hate crimes motivated by a sexual orientation bias. The FBI's authority to investigate hate crimes motivated by a disability bias is generally limited to incidents interfering with the victim's housing rights.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I am totally and completely outraged and offended by your little remark. We at the Church of Satan have no affiliation with the RNC whatsoever. We're evil, but we're not that evil.
--
What would Bill Clinton do?
One of the big problems is that the BSD license, which is parahprased: take this and do what you want, of some otherwise GPLed code could dangerously muddy waters.
Right now there is one License for Linux, so it is *known* that all Linux is accessible only via that license.
Were you to add a second license then you would add plausable deniability to the war-chest of people determined to "steal" the code (by not allowing access to the source code for "their version.")
In short, you would end up with a bunch of people who could then say "yes, this is Linux, but its from the can-be-secret version of the license."
It just muddies waters *WITHOUT* *NEED*. Since the existing license is sufficent, adding a second provenance to the blood line would only serve to make things complex.
Plus, even the effort would be devicive. You could never _find_ and get the aproval of all the copyright holders in order to create the new provenance.
In a way it would be like a fudal lord having illegitimate idential twins, then deciding to recognize one and not the other. It (1) wouldn't make sense and if you did it, it (2) would only lead to problems.
There is anit-value in even discussing the possibility.
It would be better if Linux got so popular that the big companies decided to fight the movie/music industry to reduce copyright terms. If we were back to the original 14 year terms then in about five years (?) 2.0 would be public domiain anyway. That is how Copyright was _SUPPOSED_ to work in the first place. The ??AA(s) of the world have just managed to really screw the software industry a-priori. If M$ wants Linux, they should just just buy some senators and get the whole thing fixed anyway.
[Side Note: patents cannot let microsoft (etc) steal linux, they could make it mighty uncomfortable, but even if they had a patent on every single concept on every single line, they could never take possession of it for themselves. As long as it can live in free countries like Brazil it will be unkillable. The same unstealability goes for coercing a license change, or buying one. As long as Copyright is at these untenable extremes, everything GPLed is irrevocably public unto the Nth generation. If copyright were back where it belonged M$ (etc) would be "free to innovate" (liberate?) (e.g. steal) some of the older versions in like 2006. If you follow my hyperbole.]
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
No. NTFS is neither patented, nor dangerous to use.
The history. All started about 5 years ago. The old NTFS driver was written for NT4 NTFS but Windows 2000 introduced some improvements. The changes were important enough not to work with the NT4 driver. Unfortunately the driver didn't check the NTFS version, developers vanished thus it thrashed quite many people's filesystem. Unfortunately nobody cared to fix it for a long time.
Here comes Merkey to the picture. He generously offered people a Linux utility, free of charge that had Windows fix NTFS itself (aka run fsck during boot). Unfortunately he had an NDA with Microsoft, not to reveal internals of NTFS. According to him, Microsoft threatened him with a suit. Microsoft claims that it never threatened him or his company with a suit. More about the issue here.
The story got Slashdot attention but with some twists: Microsoft Litigation vs. Linux NTFS Kernel Support. The minor problem was, that the Linux support for NTFS had nothing to do with Jeff Merkey or his company. Still, the Linux community thought they were directly threatened by Microsoft.
Conclusion? Linux NTFS development slowed down a lot. Red Hat has removed NTFS support completely and after 4 years, they still refer to non-existent NTFS patents, even if they would be void due to laws, e.g. the project is for the purpose of writing interoperable software under Sect. 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering exception of the DMCA.
And why NTFS isn't dangerous? Write support was disabled about 3-4 years ago and a new driver was written from scratch for 2.6 kernels that doesn't implement write, except file overwriting.